regard to the condition of the pulse, it is safe to increase the quantity of ether or of chloroform until the inspired air is fully saturated and the patient fairly narcotized. If there is any one consideration calculated to arrest attention in the history of etherization, it is that, although the anæsthetic agents have been open to liberal use in every part of the civilized world, whether experimentally, ignorantly, or carelessly, although thousands have experienced their good effects, and although the physiologist, the ether opponent, and the coroner have been equally ready to seize upon and to exaggerate any case of accident that might seem to fall within their range, yet it is probable that the number of cases thus publicly suspected to have been fatal is less than ten, while the only conclusive instances of direct relation between an anesthetic agent and death are two in number. Can antimony or opium show as clean a bill of health for the same period? THE DISCOVERY OF MODERN ETHER ANESTHESIA.1 THE date of the announcement of modern ether anæsthesia is October 1, 1846. The medical profession, whether here or elsewhere, were then believing as little in the possibility of escaping the pain of amputation as they do at this moment in the existence of a cure for cancer. Up to that time mankind in general was in fact as profoundly asleep in regard to this subject as if it were itself under the influence of ether vapor. Suddenly the light of the American discovery was blazing all over the civilized world. The new method was everywhere received and practised as the greatest gift that medicine had ever conferred upon mankind. There can be no doubt that the discovery of modern anæsthesia would have been so received at any previous time. There can be but one inference as to whether the discovery of 1846 was already in their possession. In order to settle this question understandingly, however, we should be fully agreed as to what constitutes a discovery, and also as to what this particular discovery was. To discover is to uncover, to bring to light, to show, to make known, as well as to find out something hidden or not known before. The world pays handsomely, but not for what is doubtful or uncertain. It exacts clear evidence of the value of what it pays for. If Dr. X. last year thought that he had discovered a cure for cancer, but for some reason was unable to persuade the world of its value because it did not always 1 Now first published. succeed, or because there was some other doubt about it, or, in short, if he did not "compel the world to hear him," and if next year Dr. Y., working in parallel lines, makes a similar discovery, so clearly and undisputably that the civilized world recognizes it, Dr. Y. will receive the honor and gratitude of the world, and Dr. X. will have to be content with his own approbation and that of the friends who were benefited at his hands. Such is the theory, and such the practice, of discovery. Thousands of people had been made insensible, many by inhalation, some by ether. But until 1846 neither ether nor gas was known to produce at will an anesthesia that was complete, sure to occur in every individual, and safe. On the contrary, all previous insensibility was either uncertain to occur when wanted; or it was incomplete, as against the severer forms of pain; or it was considered to be of doubtful safety. Morton's discovery consisted in his proof that ether insensibility was possible to everybody, that it could always be made complete when the operator desired it, and that it was safe. It detracts nothing from his discovery, that, like every discoverer that ever lived, he availed himself of all previously existing knowledge, written or oral. In September, 1846, nobody knew that ether inhalation was sure, complete, and safe. Indeed, without Morton there is no reason to believe that this property of ether would have been known for years after. It was still generally believed by the scientific world. that great danger attended the experiments. In the view of the best contemporaneous science, Morton was recklessly, culpably, and indiscriminately subjecting every patient he could procure to this danger. But he proved that the scientifically ignorant Morton was right, and the scientifically learned world was wrong. A man may discover or make known new things to him self, or to a few friends, or to the world. The last is what we are now talking about. There never was a discovery of importance made which was not claimed by others who had come near to it. In fact, there never was a discovery of a principle, or an invention of a method of much pecuniary value, which was not contested in the courts. It should be fully conceded that many an ex post facto claimant is honest, and believes himself in the right. It may be also conceded that he made ingenious experiments in the right direction, producing results that were not wholly conclusive to the world, but fell short of persuading it. THE DISCOVERER OF SURGICAL ANESTHESIA. A LETTER.1 MY DEAR SIR, In reply to your note requesting “an opinion of the relative merits of two rival claimants" in the ether discovery, I must say that it is so many years since I have indulged in that controversy that I approach it with reluctance, not to say awe, in respect of its duration and magnitude. I have advocated the claim of Morton on two grounds, that his alone was the first perfect knowledge as to the three points of certainty, safety, and completeness. These three points constituted the discovery. Experiments previous to his (no matter by whom, and they had been instituted by several persons) were inconclusive, because desultory and of varying and uncertain import, one resulting in one way and the next in another. They brought about no conviction, and were virtually abandoned, while the great question of danger from this extraordinary trance was wholly unsettled. Morton, by close and consecutive experiments, which he had firmly determined to make with something or other to produce insensibility, proved the infallibility and the safety of ether on his own responsibility, and made the world concede the demonstrated fact. Inasmuch as, if he had killed his subjects, he, and he alone, would have been indicted for manslaughter, without benefit of clergy or a particle of sympathy from any doctor whatever, 1 Now first published. |